To the Victor, Go the Spoils (Redux): A Plausible Central Powers Victory

wSZs4v6.png

The Ottoman Armistice
September - October 1918

By November Britain was on the precipice of more dramatic political upheaval. The country had been due an election since 1915, with the planned vote having been suspended due to the war. By December, the British people would have been waiting nearly four years since the previous election - almost an entire Parliamentary term without a say in their governance.

For many in the UK this was growing increasingly tiresome, especially since the War Cabinet had collapsed and the Conservatives now governed alone with the support of some Coalition Liberals under Lloyd George. A politically exhausted H. H. Asquith, who had proven to be a weak war leader and now continued to prove a man beyond his time politically, remained leader of the Opposition while most Britons looked to Labour’s William Adamson as the real alternative.

With the war over in Europe and peace literally being discussed as Britain fought on, many ordinary Britons increasingly viewed the conflict as pointless. The military gains in the middle east had raised the hopes of many that there would soon be a settlement, but yet the fall of Adana had taken place a month prior and still fighting raged in the Taurus Mountains.

The Ottomans, to their credit, seemed determined to fight on with German arms despite their rapidly declining strength. While the Ottomans had initially had a large army in 1914, by 1918 the country had essentially been in a non-stop war since 1911, first with Italy, then the Balkan powers twice, and then the world war.

Unfortunately though, having successfully seized Baku and its vital oil fields and established the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic, the Ottomans had inadvertently infuriated the German Government who had been locked in a ‘race’ with the Turks to the city. Germany, for its part, was determined that Azerbaijan would become a neutral state with a German supported Government and full oil extraction rights being held by Germany.

In this they were of course willing to be conciliatory to the Turks, however the Turkish Government - determined to control Azerbaijan and the oil themselves, had undermined German claims to provide security to the Georgian Government after the Army of the Caucuses engaged Georgian units in June at Vorontsovka. In the aftermath of the engagement, Hans von Seeckt had been dispatched to meet with Enver Pasha, and Vehip Pasha had been fired from his role in the army. Worse still, Germany had briefly threatened to withdraw all support from the Turks, leaving the Turks concerned that Germany would not be a reliable partner in the future.

This was a fair assumption, and the Germans in fact were so determined to prevent the Turks from advancing that they even sought out the Soviets to stop them. In August, having recognized they lacked the strength to directly seize Azerbaijan, the Germans and the Bolsheviks agreed that if Germany were able to prevent the advance of the Army of Islam, they would annex Azerbaijan and permit the Germans to receive 25% of all oil extracted from the oil fields.

Germany then insisted that Enver Pasha cease his advance - but he intentionally ignored the request, and instead seized the city on September 15th. This infuriated the German Government, who promptly refused to provide military aid to the Sublime Porte unless concessions were agreed and German industry were given access to Baku’s fields. On this, the Turks were at the very least open to discussions and negotiations opened shortly after - much to the frustration of Enver Pasha.

Despite this diplomatic uncertainty, the Ottomans now felt they had now achieved their main strategic goal in the war and thus their incentive to remove Britain from the conflict grew significantly. Britain, after all, was the only state besides Germany with forces near Baku, and thus the only state capable of threatening Ottoman control of its oil.

Further, the Ottomans were plainly running out of manpower and ammunition, and would benefit from a force to balance the influence of Germany in Europe and Bulgaria in the Balkans. With Germany seeming an intimidating continentally dominant power now, and German diplomatic pressure visibly bullying the Ottoman Government over matters of economic policy, the Government decided to act. On October 30th the Ottoman Government dispatched captured British General Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend to request a negotiated, conditional armistice.

Ottoman terms were simple; the British would receive limited territories in the Ottoman Arabian territories. In exchange, Britain would cease its conflict with the empire and would not demand any financial indemnity for the conflict, and would recognise Ottoman suzerainty over conquered territories in the east, and make no demands regarding Armenia.

For Britain, this was a divisive offer. The territorial claims offered to her excluded Mosul and northern Mesopotamia, and even excluded Aleppo, with the border being drawn in a nearly diagonal line towards Kirkuk from Aleppo. Despite this limitation though, Britain would achieve virtually all of her war aims by seizing Transjordan, Palestine and most of Mesopotamia, while only the French segment of the Sykes-Picot agreement would be lost.

While Britain lost little by simply waiting the Ottomans out as Turkish forces could not easily re-conquer the Arab provinces, the idea of a final peace did carry significant attraction. By forcing a Central Powers state out of the conflict for good, PM Bonar Law could show the British public that the conflict was worth it, and could also secure significant territorial concessions, and deliver for Britain’s Arab allies without a painful mountainous campaign.

Despite this, Britain would not commit to exact borders in an armistice agreement. Responding to the Ottoman Government through an envoy in Switzerland, the British nonetheless agreed to negotiate under the principles of a southern British zone and maintaining Turkish territorial integrity up to and north of the Taurus Mountains - maintaining intentionally vague positions regarding exact borders. Additionally, Britain required that the Empire immediately evacuate their conquered Persian holdings.

The two sides would announce an armistice agreement along the lines of those principles by October 10th, which would be signed by Ottoman Marine Affairs Minister Rauf Bey and British Admiral Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe on board HMS Agamemnon in Kaleköy Harbour on the island of Imbros.

Consequences
The Ottoman armistice agreement with Britain marked the first and only case of a Central Powers partner agreeing to unilaterally end hostilities with any single member of the Allied powers. It almost immediately triggered a split with German leadership, who excluded the Ottomans from any further negotiations with the Allies at Vienna and Brussels, prompting a flurry of background treaties between the other allied powers and the Ottomans later.

The British agreed to the Ottoman armistice on the behalf of the entire Allied force, further emphasising a split between Britain and France over the peace as Britain reneged upon the Sykes-Picot agreement, no longer offering the French any middle eastern holdings.

This was in part out of concerns that the Turks would simply never offer territory to a power who had not defeated them, but was more so out of a genuine long standing competition between Britain and France. Even prior to and during the negotiations for Sykes-Picot, the Foreign Ministry had sought to exclude France from territorial influence in the middle east and, seeing their opportunity, chose to ignore the agreement under the pretext that France had not contributed to the Ottoman defeat.

This came as a bitter blow to the French Government who quietly had been urging Britain to finish the Ottomans off and thus secure France territories that could translate into somewhat of a ‘victory’ in the conflict - though in reality this was a deeply naive hope.

The German-Ottoman split would further trigger animosity over the future of Baku also, which remained occupied by Turkish forces with the Azeri Republic in the region remaining a close partner of the Turks. Germany, while still de-facto allied with the Ottomans, would continue to press for economic concessions, but with the Ottomans out of the conflict, the nationalist Government had relatively skillfully removed the pressure of a British advance and their dwindling supplies from Germany. Without a war, what could Germany offer but later economic investment - investment that now the Turks could themselves secure through the sale of oil, perhaps even to Britain.
Awesome stuff!
 
As it turns out, I've got to pretty totally re-write the next update to implement changes after discussions here about the German potential for sallying out the fleet. Not gunna rush it as I want it to be right, so I'll post it tomorrow when it's ready. Have half fixed it, so shouldnt take too long.

So no update today!
 
Here is an example from Denmark on how the food balance could change ittl. According to this Denmark maintained food exports to Great Britain because the were dependent on animal feed imports after russian exports diminished.
I would Think that just the perceived German win and prospects of renewed Russian exports might shift this balance towards Germany. Not an example refuting any general arguments you have made, but an example of a quantitative shift in Germany favor. No need to respond to this, its only a small added weight on the scale.
Yankeewolf said:
…Be honest here, do you seriously think the Democrats do worse than THIS?
I really enjoy reading detailed information on fairly obscure topics like the link in Gudestein's post and the superb maps as in Yankeewolf's spoiler. From his timeline here, TheReformer obviously transforms raw data just like this into a very believable alternate World War I history. I salute all 3 of you.

P.S. Yankeewolf, it was eye-opening to see the House of Representative districts as they were then. And several states had more electoral votes than I ever assumed they had, like Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.
 

kham_coc

Kicked
As it turns out, I've got to pretty totally re-write the next update to implement changes after discussions here about the German potential for sallying out the fleet. Not gunna rush it as I want it to be right, so I'll post it tomorrow when it's ready. Have half fixed it, so shouldnt take too long.

So no update today!
If I were to guess at German strategy here, it should be to isolate the UK - all German thinking agreed that any gains or structures (customs union) imposed must be accepted by the world, or trade would suffer.
So in other words the US must be made happy, even if it means worse terms when peaceing out the continent.
Only if colonies matter should the UK be involved, but tbh given the ease with which they were cut of, the logical response should to write it all off and just focus on Europe.
Once the UK is isolated, the blockade is weakened significantly.

As for any general fleet action, before US dreadnoughts have gone home it's a death ride (tbh, after too but one could make the argument for risking it).
If the navy is to be used, it should be in a light role from Flanders, otl not used because of horrific command structure, with the war mostly over, the navy in mild disgrace and told to do something, those units should be freed up regardless of what the HSF commands think.
 
It's not simply a tit for tat arrangement, as German franchise is incredibly misleading due in large part to the 3 class voting system. It is more inherently flawed than Britain's property requirements for voting.

Ultimately both are flawed and brutal colonial regimes. I don't dispute that. However the influence of German Militarism over the government combined with those brutal crackdowns in my view creates a *generally* more reprehensible empire, and I find it distasteful to support the Germans over the British ittl because "the Germans got their comeuppance iotl".
And I maintain it was a tit-for-tat, as the British franchise was directly linked to property ownership and thus limited to the wealthy until the end of the second world war; that is in my view a heavily restricted suffrage. Also, the German franchise was not a 3 class voting system, although Prussia's was which certainly had a significant impact on the democracy (or lack thereof) of Germany.

Alright, the last sentence is just ridiculous. This is after all alternate history, so obviously people try to find scenarios where states that failed iotl would not in their own timelines. This includes exploring distasteful scenarios such as exploring what a lasting confederate US would look like or how an Africa that still is occupied by imperial powers would develop or how the UK could hold on to India.

Also, what brutal crackdowns? The only ones I would be aware of would be the breaking of strikes, which let me remind you was again pretty standard for the day and age; the UK brutally suppressed strikes well into the 20th century (Margaret Thatcher wink wink). As a matter of fact, the Kaiser was against using the army against strikers and Germany was indeed pretty much the first nation in the world to enact social laws to address the problems of the workers; so, indeed, the government addressed the problems of the workers (voters) and did not simply beat them into submission, yes, they did in their own way banning socialist parties and the like, but still.

Lastly, sorry for the late reply, I hope I'm not derailing the thread (again), but this thread is moving quite fast and I can't really keep up lol

Edit: Edit because the thread owner does not want any more of this discussion (understably so), so just a couple last points. @Megas Valens Yeah, I'm aware of the atrocities committed by Germany in Africa, I was under the impression Godwin was referring to domestic Militarism. The massacre of the Herero in Namibia is obviously inexcusable, as is in a any genocide.
 
Last edited:
And I maintain it was a tit-for-tat, as the British franchise was directly linked to property ownership and thus limited to the wealthy until the end of the second world war; that is in my view a heavily restricted suffrage. Also, the German franchise was not a 3 class voting system, although Prussia's was which certainly had a significant impact on the democracy (or lack thereof) of Germany.

Alright, the last sentence is just ridiculous. This is after all alternate history, so obviously people try to find scenarios where states that failed iotl would not in their own timelines. This includes exploring distasteful scenarios such as exploring what a lasting confederate US would look like or how an Africa that still is occupied by imperial powers would develop or how the UK could hold on to India.

Also, what brutal crackdowns? The only ones I would be aware of would be the breaking of strikes, which let me remind you was again pretty standard for the day and age; the UK brutally suppressed strikes well into the 20th century (Margaret Thatcher wink wink). As a matter of fact, the Kaiser was against using the army against strikers and Germany was indeed pretty much the first nation in the world to enact social laws to address the problems of the workers; so, indeed, the government addressed the problems of the workers (voters) and did not simply beat them into submission, yes, they did in their own way banning socialist parties and the like, but still.

Lastly, sorry for the late reply, I hope I'm not derailing the thread (again), but this thread is moving quite fast and I can't really keep up lol
Didn't the Germans commit Genocide against some of the natives in German Sudwestafrika?
 
Colonialism the word you are looking for is Colonialism.

Yeah.... No.

Lets not have a moral debate on the virtues and ethics of the unquestionaly vile things Germany, among others, did in the colonial era here please.

Go elsewhere, or dont talk about it on my thread. I'll address these issues my own way within the TL - they are not for people to debate and discuss here.
 
Huh, this site stopped showing notifications to me, and I was quite worried about that, good job AH.com, good job:p
anyway, I would not be AT ALL surprised if by 2022 of this TTL, the world is bit worst off, I think the eastern Europeans are inclined to agree with me
 
But I click the alerts for replies, in my experiences the site just stop notifying me
Alerts don't always work, the only alerts that work reliably are the notifications of reacts to your contributions. I have given up on using alerts in the all together and only use "watched threads" these days. But this only works for me because I don't contribute much and if I contribute it's more likely than not that it's in a thread I watch.
 
Huh, this site stopped showing notifications to me, and I was quite worried about that, good job AH.com, good job:p
anyway, I would not be AT ALL surprised if by 2022 of this TTL, the world is bit worst off, I think the eastern Europeans are inclined to agree with me
I'd disagree as a Czech, it wouldn't be a bed of roses but there wouldn't be a genocidal Nazi third reich or afterwards the communist USSR and the four decade occupation. Other parts of the world might be worse off but Czechia at least I don't think would be
 
I'd disagree as a Czech, it wouldn't be a bed of roses but there wouldn't be a genocidal Nazi third reich or afterwards the communist USSR and the four decade occupation. Other parts of the world might be worse off but Czechia at least I don't think would be
I was more talking about Poland, which will be marginally worse
 
Huh, this site stopped showing notifications to me, and I was quite worried about that, good job AH.com, good job:p
anyway, I would not be AT ALL surprised if by 2022 of this TTL, the world is bit worst off, I think the eastern Europeans are inclined to agree with me
As Ukrainian, I would take my country being a Skoropadsky's Ukrainian State thousand times more over than being in a USSR.
OTL was the one of the worst timelines for Ukraine in this period around WW1
 
I was more talking about Poland, which will be marginally worse
Eh the Nazi and later Soviet occupation were still devastating enough that avoiding them I feel arguably results in less people dying, like Poland was in ruins by the end of WW2, and might be better off though polish history isn't my strong suit.
 
Eh the Nazi and later Soviet occupation were still devastating enough that avoiding them I feel arguably results in less people dying, like Poland was in ruins by the end of WW2, and might be better off though polish history isn't my strong suit.
OTOH, we don't know if and how Austria-Hungary will collapse as for all we know, it could end in a civil war with all that entails.
 
Winning the Peace: A Battle at Silver Pit? (29th October - 2nd September 1918)
wSZs4v6.png

Winning the Peace
A Battle at Silver Pit?
29th September - 2nd October 1918


Brief Disclaimer: I am not an expert in the internal mechanics of the Kaiserliche Marine (Something I shall endeavour to read more into), so please forgive any implausible interactions or decision making processes here. After analysing the various contributions here and reading further into the mutinies/naval strategy of the Kaiserliche Marine during the war, this is what I've concluded with. It won't be changed - so if it's not perfect, it's staying nontheless.

The German negotiating position in Europe was vulnerable on account of their economic and resource starvation by Britain that had been ongoing since the war began. Unable to easily import food and ‘pinned’ by a much larger British fleet ever since 1916, the German High Command had last truly fought the British at Jutland in 1916 in an ultimately failed attempt at killing a section of the Grand Fleet without fighting against the entire fleet.

This disparity between Hochseeflotte and Grand Fleet strength, with the British fielding 30 dreadnought battleships and 11 battlecruisers to the German 18 and 5 respectively, plus a further three British Carriers and nearly three times more destroyers, meant that Germany was stuck eternally incapable of escaping it’s blockade.

This left Germany forced into making haste with negotiations, and forced her to accept limited terms in order to satisfy the British into agreeing a later truce, and the Americans into agreeing to whatever terms Germany imposed on France.

Thus for Germany the single action that could resolve virtually all of its woes was the defeat of the Royal Navy in a decisive fleet battle. In doing so they could break the blockade, dispatch ships into the Atlantic and force the British to focus naval forces there rather than the north sea. In doing that, they could demand the maximum war aims desired by Hindenberg, Bauer and Ludendorff, and in doing that they would economically dominate the continent. Or at least so the OHL were convinced.

In practice it wasn't that simple. This was of course something the Naval command knew, but something that the OHL were not overly willing to accept. For example, while one could blow open the blockade into Germany, the Foreign and Trade ministries had no idea who would even ship in food to aid them. Not to mention, British cruisers and trade interdiction convoys were deployed globally, not just in the north sea, and thus ships from far flung places would fare poorly in their efforts to make it to Germany’s hungry ports.

Further, the Kaiserliche Marine had little interest in a sally forth to confront the British. Sure, they had made changes to their fleet since Jutland and even replaced their losses - but Britain had done that and then some. Britain’s fleet strength was now considerably greater than at Jutland - though primarily in light vessels where they held a three to one advantage over the Hochseeflotte. The one advantage that the Germans had, was that due to the terms of the truce the United States had detached its naval squadron from the Grand Fleet. While still ready to deploy from the Firth, the US Navy would not join any British sortie to confront the High Seas Fleet. This narrowly improved the odds and left the Germans mildly optimistic.

Chief of the Naval Staff Scheer, an aggressive commander but hardly a foolish one, had accepted the German doctrine that a living fleet was better than a dead one, and thus was broadly opposed to the plan to sally out. While publicly he would never deny that Germany stood a chance against the British, he knew that in the balance of probabilities his force would more likely be obliterated than succeed in their narrow operational aims.

The Kaiser too had doubts about the prospects of the engagement, but equally was aware that Germany had now broken the French - but had not won the war. In fact the one state he particularly despised, the British, were still denying Germany it’s domination of the continent. Thus, while he gave the Kaiserliche Marine complete planning autonomy, he ultimately did concur with Hindenburg and Ludendorff that a sortie could potentially improve the chance of a total German victory over the French.

Scheer could not be ordered to give battle by the OHL, but nonetheless when it was demanded he would be forced to at least consider the plan. They may not be his superior officers, but by 1918 the OHL undeniably had significant influence over state administration and to reject their advances would no doubt trigger consequences after the war eventually wound to a close.

Thus, Scheer prepared for such an operation. German naval strategy hinged on pitching a battle in a specific place at a specific time. Outnumbered, their best hope was to fight a section of the Grand Fleet, eliminate it entirely, and then flee back to Germany to repair. In this, they would be able to reduce the force strength of the Royal Navy without great losses on their own part. They also aimed to whittle down British ships with U-Boat attacks and mine traps.

This had been the aim of the Battle of Jutland too, but when it came down to it the German trap had failed. Here, Scheer would make an effort to at least do some, any damage to the British before heading home at pace.

German Preparations
While Scheer was willing to placate the OGL’s demand to at least consider an attack on the British fleet, Hipper was unconvinced. Still the commander of the Hochseeflotte, Hipper was ordered to prepare for operations as early as July with the surrender of France, but neglected to do so on any significant scale.

Hipper was a realist. An aggressive realist and a proud German fleet Admiral, but a realist nonetheless. He knew that an attack on the Grand Fleet would be suicide, and he was unwilling to see the fleet annihilated for the sake of an unconvincing attempt to try and blunt British negotiating strength in the future. After all, surely if Germany were to be a convincing global power after the war, she would need to have a fleet that she could deploy to counter British threats - or else whenever Britain felt affronted, she could just yet again impose a blockade.

Scheer was himself very aware of this fact, but had become convinced nonetheless that a battle could achieve results. This was because he remained convinced that a German fleet action, if well executed, could attack specific elements of the Grand Fleet, cripple them, and then retreat. This might, he reasoned, deliver enough of a blow to the Grand Fleet that their sailors may later be less willing to engage with the Germans, and Germany therefore might be able to break the blockade later in January or February.

Provided losses were kept at a minimum, primarily through the aid of U-Boats and torpedo salvos, Scheer wagered that he could satisfy the requests of the OHL while not annihilating his surfare fleet. He need only slightly dent the British, and they might see the conflict was fruitless and bow out sooner rather than later.

To say Scheer was overly confident of success though would be a lie. Still holding reservations, Scheer confided in Hipper in August that any such attack still carried grave risk, and thus the pair concluded that the best course of action would be a highly limited sally with specific objectives.

The plan thus would be as follows: The High Seas Fleet would deploy in strength at the start of October. Over the preceding weeks a large fleet of U-Boats would be deployed in specific locations across the North Sea, thus allowing for attritional attacks on the Grand Fleet prior to any engagement. Hipper would then dispatch raiders towards the mouth of the Thames. This would be an intentional target aimed at drawing the Grand Fleet south, creating an impression that the Hochseeflotte had moved south along the coast of Holland.

The High Seas Fleet though in reality would move north over Dogger Bank and aim to engage the Grand Fleet from its rear near Silver Pit. This was an intentional choice by Hipper, who aimed to launch an aggressive assault on the fleet before immediately breaking off and moving to return back to port.

In doing so, Hipper hoped to be able to outmanoeuvre the large and untested Grand Fleet which had until now not yet engaged in conflict in its current size and structure.

British Preparations
The British were, unbeknownst to the Germans, completely prepared for a major German action. On high alert for several weeks, an operation to try and force Britain out of the conflict had been clearly on the cards since the loss of Amiens back in March, and Room 40 had perfectly identified the buildup of the German fleet at Schillig Roads on the evening of 29 September.

So accurate in fact was British intelligence, that Vice Admiral Sydney Fremantle, the Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff, had even informed Beatty that the Germans intended to sail on October 1st. Beatty had accordingly positioned the Grand Fleet at high Steam pressure in the Firth of Forth in preparation for action, and his men seemed motivated. News of the Ottoman armistice had buoyed their morale, and while the Americans would not join their sortie, the Grand Fleet still held a massive advantage over the Germans.

Capable of leaving harbour and being at full sail from the Firth within four hours, the Grand Fleet had no clear idea where the Germans intended to go, but standing orders would see the Fleet head directly towards the centre of the North Sea - this maximising the chance of intercept and preventing a return of the fleet back to Germany. Following pre-established paths of known German mine laying formations and submarine forces, the fleet assumed that the Germans would sail towards either the British south coast, or towards Dogger Bank.

Early Issues
By October 30th the High Seas Fleet had been successfully assembled off the Schillig Roads in Wilhelmshaven Harbour. The assembly had, however, seen some difficulties. Several vessels, notably the two battleships SMS Thüringen and SMS Helgoland, had seen crews refuse to weigh anchor in the early hours of October 1st.

This happened for a few reasons. First, due to the absence of any intended deployments of the High Seas Fleet since Jutland in 1916 many of the valuable and reliable sailors and officers had been transferred to the submarine service and other frontline fleet services. Poor rations and mundane orders between 1917-1918 left the sailors bored numb and frustrated at their living conditions, prompting the formation of some sailors councils aboard several of the Fleet’s major vessels.

German sailors plainly did not want to leave port on a risky mission against an enemy they now knew to be stronger than their own force. Having experienced the extremely indecisive battle of Jutland, and aware of the British expansion in naval capacity since 1916, German sailors had been overjoyed by victory over France and it had left them confident that they would not again be asked to engage the Grand Fleet.

Why, after all, would they be asked to fight a superior enemy when peace with such an enemy was surely just a matter of time. Many of the sailors too had been inspired by socialist slogans and the efforts of President Wilson in advocating a peace aimed at providing peoples with their national independence and self determination. Thus, for many sailors the idea that Germany ought to send forth it’s fleet in order to compel France into surrendering French speaking territories seemed both illogical and unnecessarily imperialistic.

Many sailors therefore rejected the plans, but some, motivated by the prospect of securing a victory at sea for the Empire and having gained some faith in German chances in the war, gave credit to the naval high command and reluctantly accepted the planned sortie.

The Thüringen and Helgoland’s mutinies thus came as a surprise to naval officers, who quickly brought the vessels into firing range of torpedoes and threatened the ships with destruction. The sailors promptly surrendered, were led off their vessel, and reservists ordered into service. The fleet were stood down for 24 hours during this process, but German officers nonetheless remained confident that the morale of the remainder of the fleet would be good enough to continue the operation.

The Sortie
Setting off on October 2nd, the fleet dispatched its strike forces at 0700 hours, with the main body of the fleet set to follow an hour later. Within two hours, British naval intelligence and maritime patrols indicated that the High Seas Fleet had been put to sea, and signals were dispatched to the Grand Fleet to deploy - which they did shortly after.

Yet the report was misleading. The initial assault formations had indeed put to sea - the main body of the fleet though had not.

Upon being ordered to weigh anchor and move out to sea, the initially small mutiny had spread to numerous other vessels. Refusing to deploy, the Battleships Baden, Bayern and Markgraf were so vital to the operation that it was immediately cancelled by Hipper who was himself hesitant to deploy.

The initial strike forces were then recalled back to Wilhelmshaven, and almost as quickly as it had started the operation was at an end.

The Grand Fleet meanwhile would be recalled by 1300 hours after it became evident that the German sortie had failed. Having correctly estimated the positions of German U-Boats, no incidents of mine strikes or U-Boat torpedo attacks were reported. British commanders, perplexed by the incident, correctly attributed the failed sortie to a mutiny, and thus concluded Germany now had no willing Naval force.

Aftermath
The failed sortie German leadership concluded several things. Firstly, the navy would have to be reformed to prevent similar incidents happening in the future. Secondly, a Naval Sortie under current conditions would not be a viable operation. Finally, that Britain was far better prepared for a naval engagement that Scheer had immediately assumed.

The speed at which the Grand Fleet put to sea proved to the Germans that while their fleet might have been able to execute the planned operation successfully, in practice the most likely outcome would have been that the fleet would have been identified by the Grand Fleet and, with such low morale, likely destroyed. While the mutiny never amounted to a wider political revolt against German leadership, the fleet would never again be deployed against the British throughout what remained of the conflict.

This broke the resolve of the Kaiserlichte Marine, who now resolved to firmly reject any plans for a sortie and instructed the German Government under von Hertling that it should seek an accommodation with Britain. The British Government, for their part, were greatly emboldened by the failed sortie and concluded that Germany could now be effectively pressered into a position where they would accept British terms for a conclusion to trhe conflict. For Prime Minister Bonar Law this was the ideal outcome as it allowed an end to the conflict, and thus the opportunity for recovery, along with justifying his continuation of the war - now being able to sell himself as the man who forced a victorious Germany into terms.

The OHL, accepting the new reality, thus moderated their approach to peace terms with the French - but would not have the chance to negotiate with Britain.


If you want to see how a real fleet engagement may have turned out in 1918, I highly recommend the following video:
 
Last edited:
I feel this is very fitting for this, and for what is to come.


The British may be able to push their own terms and winning war aims here, and there like in the Middle East, but how much is to actually matter in the short, or long run is another question. The UK may end up looking like Italy here, just cracking apart below and above the surface. They still don't have any men on the field, or able to actually fight the CP in Europe.

I'm really seeing a 'Peace with Honor' that both sides are pissed at. Bonar Law is not going to look his future, or that of the Empire.
 
Top